Double Procession of the Holy Spirit?

[mardukm]

CONTINUED

Authoritative Eastern sources such as the Synod of Blacharnae and St. Gregory Palamas made a distinction between the hypostasis of the Spirit and His Energy within the Godhead (note: this ontological distinction of Essence/Energy within the Godhead is something I reject as an Oriental – but the Church has never ruled that such a difference should be a cause for disunity). These Eastern sources assert that:

1. The hypostatic procession (ekporeusai) is unique to the Father. In other words, the very Being of the Spirit proceeds (ekporeusai from the Father alone;
2. The energetic procession (ekporeusai) is “through the Son.” It should be noted that these Eastern sources use the same word ekporeusai in affirming this energetic procession that is distinct from the hypostatic procession.
3. This energetic procession is also known as the “eternal manifestation of the Spirit.”

Now, let’s compare it to the teaching of the Western Church on filioque:

1. The Father is the sole Source (Arche) of the Son and the Spirit.
2. The Father is the sole Source of the Essence of Divinity, which proceeds (procedit or proienai) to the Spirit through the Son.
3. Divinity is what makes the Holy Spirit God (i.e., it is the Essence or Being of God), and, therefore, the very Being of the Holy Spirit is correctly stated to be “through the Son.”
4. This divine operation is eternal.

The key to reconciling the two Traditions on the matter is in understanding that in the Eastern Tradition, Divinity itself is considered an Energy of God. So the Eastern Tradition admits that Divinity (as Energy) is transmitted (i.e., proceeds) to the Holy Spirit through the Son, exactly as the Western Tradition on filioque teaches!!!. The only distinction is that while the Western Tradition understands Divinity as the very Essence of Godhead, the Eastern Tradition understands Divinity to be Energy distinct from Essence. The question we must ask is whether this distinction is enough to merit continued separation between the two Traditions. As in almost all other things, it seems to me to only be a matter of terms and definitions.

Comments?

NOTE: Currently, a novel argument has cropped up in Eastern Orthodox circles, which claims to derive itself from the Essence/Energy distinction utilized by Eastern Fathers in the early part of the second millennium. This argument states that the “procession” refers only to the temporal mission of the Holy Spirit. It is claimed that the Holy Spirit is through the Son only in the sense that the Son sends the Spirit from the Father in the Spirit’s role as sanctifier of the world. It is a procession that occurs merely in time, and is initially bounded by the event at Pentecost. With such a concept, I can find no reasonable nor satisfactory resolution with the Western doctrine of filioque. At the same time, I don’t see the use of finding such a resolution, because this new EO concept is a novelty that should be discarded. It has no patristic support, and apostolic Christians should not pretend to give it credence by even attempting a resolution.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[fritzz_ezz]

No it wasn’t.

How many times has it been asserted (here and elsewhere) that the filioque was intended to combat Arianism in Spai
n, which in fact was a heresy maintaing the it was Jesus who was not God.

The filioque was intended to show that Jesus was as much God as the Father, and so could also send forth the Holy Spirit as the Father does.

Double origin to prove Jesus was God, not just some exalted holy person.

Arianism wasn’t only in Spain but also among the Franks. The Filioque was rejected by Rome until about the year 1014. Pope Leo III decreed that the Creed of Toledo was not to be used.

Using John, xv.26, a more recent theological explanation dialogue with the Orthodox that is being used, the Holy Spirit was spirated from the Father through the Son. It is clear that the Son sends the Holy Spirit and the Holy Spirit comes from the Father.